State v. Echols
| Decision Date | 26 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. C-970272.,C-970272. |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. ECHOLS, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Linda S. Bolin, for appellant.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
The state argued, in part, that taxpayers could save money by trying appellant Lonnie Curtis Echols on six counts of robbery, six counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of kidnapping in a single trial. We recognize that multiple criminal charges may be joined in a single trial under Crim.R. 8(A) and that joinder can, in some instances, serve the purposes for which the rule was created—"to conserve judicial resources, reduce the chance of incongruous results in successive trials, and diminish inconvenience to the witnesses."1 This was not such an instance.
Conservation of judicial resources was the only purpose arguably served by joinder under the facts of this case. Neither the possibility of incongruous results (which would usually be in the case of multiple defendants, not multiple charges) nor inconvenience to witnesses (as different witnesses testified to different counts) was implicated here. When the need to conserve judicial resources is balanced against Echols's right to a fair trial, the right to a fair trial must prevail. Thus, we conclude that joinder of all fourteen charges in one trial was prejudicial in this case.
Our determination does not necessarily mean that each charge against Echols must be tried separately, only that the trial court should closely examine the charged offenses and join for trial only those offenses that demonstrate modus operandi with those that are so simple and distinct that there is little danger that the jury will use the evidence in a cumulative, corroborating manner. We reverse Echols's convictions and remand this cause for a new trial. We begin our analysis with the facts.
On March 24, 1996, a man entered the Circle K store in the Corryville area of Cincinnati, Ohio, wearing a brownish-gray stocking cap pulled over his face, past his nose. The clerk working that evening could see the man's eyes through the almond-shaped eyeholes cut in the cap, as well as the uncovered part of his face beginning with the top of his upper lip. Along with the cap, he wore a brownishgray jacket with a double racing stripe down one arm and dark baggy work pants. The man approached the counter with a purposeful, quick, smooth stride and pulled a six-inch, black-handled serrated knife with a sharp tip from his jacket pocket. The clerk noticed the man's large, rough, dry hands. Holding the knife, the man demanded money from the cash register drawer and warned the clerk not to touch the "bait" money. (Bait money is money that activates a camera when pulled from the cash drawer.) After taking money and food stamps, the man left.
The clerk noticed that the man had not been wearing gloves and that he put or slid his hands on the counter and touched the front door. So after the man left, the clerk covered the counter to protect any fingerprints that might have been left and to prohibit any other prints from being left. She stated that "the only other fingerprints" that would have been on the counter would have been hers. The police dusted for fingerprints.
While the clerk noted that the man did not have a goatee or glasses, she did not know whether he had a mustache, gold caps on his teeth, or any missing teeth. (While Echols may be missing teeth or have a gold tooth, nothing in the record demonstrates this.) In her report to the police, she described the thief as a black male in his twenties, approximately five feet, eight inches tall and one hundred forty pounds. Following the incident, she provided a written description of the man and drew a sketch of the knife.
On May 7, 1996, the clerk identified Echols as the robber, after viewing him in a line-up. She based her identification on his voice, his hands, his build, and his skin tone. The police preliminary investigation report contained on the back a notation by Cincinnati Police Officer Condo in reference to the line-up identification. It stated, "Very Strong ID-Not Positive Due To Face Being Partially Covered."
On March 27, 1996, a man swiftly walked into the same Corryville Circle K store. He wore a thin paper cap, resembling a surgical hair cap, pulled over his face. The cap had eyeholes cut into it and was held in place by a two-colored baseball cap with writing. The man wore dark jeans and a black or navy winter jacket. The clerk working the shift could see through the "mask" that the man had a mustache, but could not recall whether he wore glasses. The man walked to the counter and demanded money from the clerk, including the roll of quarters she had just opened. From his jacket, he pulled a knife with a thick blade approximately six inches long and one to two inches wide. The clerk described the man as broad-shouldered, approximately five feet, ten inches tall and weighing one hundred fifty to one hundred sixty pounds. She described his hands as rough, with a "working" look, and "kind of veiny." Later, upon seeing a composite drawing, she informed the police that the man might have been in the store previously as a customer.
She identified Echols at the May 7 police line-up by his voice and face. A notation on the back of the preliminary investigation report by Officer Condo referred to the line-up identification as "not Positive Due To Face Being Covered But Very Strong On # 2." (Echols was the second person in the lineup.) She stated that a knife and jacket shown to her by the police were "positively" not the knife and jacket she saw on the night of March 27.
On the morning of April 10, 1996, in a church parking lot in Mt. Auburn, a woman was "supervising" her husband as he changed a flat tire on her car. A man approached the woman from her side and demanded money. He placed a knife first in her ribs and then to her throat and threatened to kill the woman unless the husband gave him money. They informed him they had no money. The woman, however, told the man that there was money in their other car, parked approximately six vehicles away. The woman proceeded to her car, with the man following her. At the car, she retrieved her purse and handed him her wallet. The man emptied it, took the cash, and walked away, while the woman observed.
The woman described the robber as a twenty-five-year-old black man, approximately five feet, eight inches or five feet, ten inches tall and clean-shaven. He was not wearing glasses. He was wearing a green knit cap, pulled down to his eyebrows, a buttoned-up black and red flannel shirt, and dark pants. Her husband testified that the robber was five feet, ten inches to six feet tall and weighed less than one hundred seventy pounds. He said the robber wore a mostly red shirt with black checks or stripes and a dark green knit cap lowered to his eyebrows. He was not wearing glasses and was clean-shaven. He described the knife as resembling a kitchen or restaurant knife, and stated it had a black handle and a fairly long steel blade at least six inches long. In the police report, he described the robber as a twenty-five-year-old black male, approximately five feet, eight inches tall and weighing one hundred sixty pounds.
Later, police officers showed both victims a composite drawing and a photograph array. The victims stated that the composite resembled the robber, but were unable to identify him from the photographs, none of which depicted Echols. The husband identified Echols as the robber at the May 7 line-up, based on Echols's face and voice pattern. Following the line-up, the husband also identified a shirt recovered from Echols's apartment as one similar to that worn by the robber. The wife also identified Echols as the robber at the line-up.
In the afternoon on March 13, 1996, a man entered a dry-cleaning business located in Corryville, walked to the back, and showed the cashier a knife. They returned to the front of the business where the cash register was located, and he had the woman open the cash drawer. The man took money and checks. He then walked her to the back of the store, bound her arms and legs with a black ribbon, and made her lie on the floor. Upon hearing him leave, she "scooted" to the front door and began screaming. The man, who was at the door, shoved her back inside, despite her attempts to hold the door closed, and landed on top of her. She kept screaming. When others came to her aid, the man jumped up and ran out the front door.
The cashier testified the man was wearing a black baseball cap with a "Fila" logo, black jeans, and a purple, green, and aqua jacket, which she subsequently identified at trial. She stated he weighed about one hundred sixty pounds. He was not wearing glasses and had a "shadow" of a mustache. She described the knife as a kitchen knife with a four-inch blade and a brown handle.
Following the incident, she helped the police prepare a composite drawing of the thief. The written description provided by the cashier described the robber as a black male, in his late twenties or thirties, with a medium brown complexion and the start of a mustache. It estimated him to be between five feet, ten inches and six feet tall and to weigh one hundred sixty to one hundred eighty pounds. His face was described as sunken with very high...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Benedict
...v. Bennie , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-020497, 2004-Ohio-1264, 2004 WL 535277, ¶ 17-18, quoting State v. Echols , 128 Ohio App.3d 677, 708, 716 N.E.2d 728 (1st Dist.1998) (Gorman, J., dissenting). See also State v. Bass , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-622, 2013-Ohio-4503, 2013 WL 5595417, ¶ 9 ......
-
Wagner v. Warden, Southern Ohio Corr. Facility
...the defendant' and such evidence tends to show one of the matters enumerated in Evid.R. 404(B). (Emphasis sic.) State v. Echols (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 677, 692, 716 N.E.2d 728, citing State v. Lowe, 69 Ohio St.3d 527, 530, 634 N.E.2d 616, 1994-Ohio-345. In order for other-acts evidence to ......
-
State v. Smith
...Evid.R. 404(B). State v. Wagner, 5th Dist. Licking 03 CA 82, 2004-Ohio-3941, 2004 WL 1672200, ¶ 43, citing State v. Echols, 128 Ohio App.3d 677, 692, 716 N.E.2d 728 (1st Dist.1998). This Court has recognized that the Ohio Revised Code does not define "substantial proof" in this context. See......
-
State v. Rosemond
...segregating the proof and not cumulating evidence of the various offenses being tried.(Citations omitted.) State v. Echols , 128 Ohio App.3d 677, 694, 716 N.E.2d 728 (1st Dist.1998). {¶16} In this case, the evidence related to the counts arising from the December 3 traffic stop was distinct......